The populist Five Star Movement, founded by stand-up comedian Beppe Grillo as a bombastic challenge to the established order, emerged as the big winner of the general election, in a result that will be viewed with trepidation in Brussels.

With around half the ballot counted, it looked as though the Five Star Movement had won around a third of all votes, up from 25 per cent in Italy’s last general election in 2013.

The Eurosceptic, anti-immigration League also performed well, according to preliminary calculations.

The numbers suggested that The League and Five Star together attracted 50 per cent of all votes.

The League was projected to take more than 17 per cent of the vote – compared with just four per cent at the last election.

In a bitter blow for former premier Silvio Berlusconi, The League was projected to take more votes than his more moderate, centre-Right Forza Italia party.

The two parties are in an uneasy alliance, along with two other centre-Right parties, and together the bloc was expected to win around 37 per cent of the vote.

No party or alliance got over the threshold of 40 per cent, which would have allowed it to form a government outright.

Matteo Salvini, the leader of The League, wrote in a tweet: “My first words – thank you.”

There was a euphoric mood at the party’s headquarters in Milan, with one official telling reporters that the League's strong showing was "a clear signal to Europe, which has mistreated Italians."

The governing Democratic Party, headed by former prime minister Matteo Renzi, performed dismally, with exit polls suggesting it won less than 20 per cent of the vote – a disastrous result for Italy’s mainstream centre-Left party.

It appeared to have been punished by voters for persistently high unemployment, a laggardly economy and the reception of 600,000 migrants arriving by boat from Libya in the last four years.

As the largest party, Five Star is likely to demand the chance to try to form a government.

"Nobody will be able to govern without the Five Star Movement," said senior party member Riccardo Fraccaro. "We will assume the responsibility to build this government, but in a different way, talking with all the parties about what this country needs."

However, the party has repeatedly ruled out forming a coalition with other parties, guaranteeing uncertainty over what happens next.

"Di Maio wins, Italy ungovernable," was the front-page headline on the first edition of La Stampa newspaper.

One scenario would be a loose alliance between Five Star and The League – both have called for hundreds of thousands of unauthorised migrants to be sent back to their home countries and both have raised the prospect in the past of ditching the euro.

But many analysts believe they would make strange political bedfellows.

Nigel Farage congratulated the strong result of the Five Star movement.

"My congratulations to my colleagues in the European Parliament (@5-Star Movement) for topping the poll tonight," he wrote in a tweet. Earlier he had tweeted, "Eurosceptism is on the rise."

The results suggested that Italy is in for a protracted period of uncertainty and weeks of tortuous horse-trading between the parties.

“Italy is far from having sorted its long-standing problems, and now it will have new ones. Be prepared for long and complex negotiations that will take months," said Lorenzo Codogno, a former chief economist at the Italian Treasury.

During the day many voters waited in line for more than an hour to vote, only to then be baffled by confusing ballots and the process to cast them - which for the first time required an anti-fraud check by polling authorities.

"You feel as if you have gone there prepared but it's not that clear," complained Sister Vincenza as she cast her ballot on Rome's Aventine hill before heading to Mass.

Some polling stations remained closed in Palermo two hours into election day because the wrong ballots were delivered and 200,000 new ones had to be reprinted overnight. Similar ballot glitches were reported elsewhere, forcing the suspension of the vote in two towns in Alessandria.

Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Is "Eurosceptic" here just a polite euphemism for racist/xenophobe/fascist/Neo-Nazi?

Possibly. They could be UKIP-style "I'm not racist but..." Diet Fascists instead though, not that I'd call that an improvement.

There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)

Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin

Is "Eurosceptic" here just a polite euphemism for racist/xenophobe/fascist/Neo-Nazi?

According to my understanding, yes and no. On other hand you have The League and the smaller party Brothers of Italy which are eurosceptic xenophobic populists, then you have the Five Star Movement which is above all an anti-system party focused on attacking the political establishment and include both right-wing and left-wing people, so they are not really consistent on the issue but their ranks also include xenophobes.

That tallies with my experience of American politics, which is that the groups which are single-mindedly focused on being "anti-establishment" over all else (eg. Greens, Bernie or Bust, etc.) have had their anger effectively coopted by the Neo-Fascist crowd to the point where they are often functionally indistinguishable.

As is often the case when discussing the far right, there is insight to be had here in reading Eco's The Eternal Fascist.

What it comes down to is that fascism has the appeal-power of saying "the thing that makes you virtuous, that makes you right, is not that you are rich, or educated, or sophisticated; your virtue comes simply from being born in a certain country. All the rich, educated, and sophisticated people are just a big veil of illusion thrown over you, to keep you from understanding your real strength as a salt-of-the-Earth hero of [insert country here]!"

This makes it very effective as a populist movement that can be targeted against authority figures, even in nations where all it would do is rearrange an existing right-wing oligarchy without actually removing it from power or even significantly altering it.

What it seems to me that people don't seem to get is that this is the future, this is not a short period of some random populist upheaval due to some silly transient reasons and at the end of it the same beloved, sensible centrists will be back in power and the world will be back on it's pre-2008 tracks towards some imagined ideal centrist sensible global future were we just keep on adjusting and fine-tuning our technocratic systems.

That world died in 2008, it produced these people and keeping it's rotting corpse on life support will keep on producing more of them until change actually happens. A lot of people probably won't like this change but they cannot stop it either since the centrist politicians have nothing to offer but more of the same, they have nothing, are nothing, believe in nothing. Populism will only grow, unstoppable. Things you think impossible will become possible, the reality in which you live. The euro gone or broken, capital controls, the WTO becoming irrelevant, tariffs, trade barriers. Its a new world being born as we speak and we have no idea what awaits but a lot of chaos. Remember people thought Reagans ideas utterly ridiculous in the beginning of the 70s, by the end of the decade they were singing a different tune. Lets see what tunes are being sung in 2028.

Maybe some thought the averting of populist candidates in France last year meant some kind of victory rather than a desperate last stand before the end?

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.

I'm an Italian citizen which gives me the right to vote in Italian elections, but like the rest of my dual-citizen Italian-Australian family, we choose not to out of principle - let the people who live there decide their own future.

I tried briefly to understand the Five Star Movement. It just.... what? Direct democracy, a political party without a stated platform or goals? I can't and don't speak Italian, so I couldn't go the primary sources to make my own judgement. I fear there may yet come a time when I lament my ignorance, and the power I chose to defer.

These wacky Nazi Italians don't want their country turned into Sub-Saharan Africa when the projected 65 million or so African migrants make their way to Europe the next couple of years?
That's.. So Crazy.

I'm an Italian citizen which gives me the right to vote in Italian elections, but like the rest of my dual-citizen Italian-Australian family, we choose not to out of principle - let the people who live there decide their own future.

I tried briefly to understand the Five Star Movement. It just.... what? Direct democracy, a political party without a stated platform or goals? I can't and don't speak Italian, so I couldn't go the primary sources to make my own judgement. I fear there may yet come a time when I lament my ignorance, and the power I chose to defer.

I mean, its your choice, but I'm a US citizen living in Canada and I still consider it not only my right but my duty to vote in every election I can. Because we live in a globalized world, what happens there will affect me (and many others), and moreover, as a citizen of an (ostensibly) democratic nation, it is my job to be politically engaged.

Besides, there's no room for neutrality or sitting on the side lines in the face of fascism. You fight them with every tool you have.

These wacky Nazi Italians don't want their country turned into Sub-Saharan Africa when the projected 65 million or so African migrants make their way to Europe the next couple of years?
That's.. So Crazy.

I mean... this is literally saying that any country that admits black or brown people will become a shit hole. And portraying Nazis as justified defenders of their country.

cosmicalstormfront could barely be more obvious if he replaced his avatar with a swastika and quoted Mein Kampf in his sig. How is he not banned yet?

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I mean... this is literally saying that any country that admits black or brown people will become a shit hole. And portraying Nazis as justified defenders of their country.

cosmicalstormfront could barely be more obvious if he replaced his avatar with a swastika and quoted Mein Kampf in his sig. How is he not banned yet?

But you don't exactly have to be a Nazi to look at the performance of black countries in Africa and say "I don't think mass immigration from these countries will bring anything good to my country" do you?
I mean if the extent of Hitler's ambition was to build a wall around Germany to limit immigration from Poland and Russia he would hardly be remembered as the monster he is today.

But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman

What it seems to me that people don't seem to get is that this is the future, this is not a short period of some random populist upheaval due to some silly transient reasons and at the end of it the same beloved, sensible centrists will be back in power and the world will be back on it's pre-2008 tracks towards some imagined ideal centrist sensible global future were we just keep on adjusting and fine-tuning our technocratic systems.

That world died in 2008, it produced these people and keeping it's rotting corpse on life support will keep on producing more of them until change actually happens. A lot of people probably won't like this change but they cannot stop it either since the centrist politicians have nothing to offer but more of the same, they have nothing, are nothing, believe in nothing. Populism will only grow, unstoppable. Things you think impossible will become possible, the reality in which you live. The euro gone or broken, capital controls, the WTO becoming irrelevant, tariffs, trade barriers. Its a new world being born as we speak and we have no idea what awaits but a lot of chaos. Remember people thought Reagans ideas utterly ridiculous in the beginning of the 70s, by the end of the decade they were singing a different tune. Lets see what tunes are being sung in 2028.

Maybe some thought the averting of populist candidates in France last year meant some kind of victory rather than a desperate last stand before the end?

The Romulan Republic wrote:I mean... this is literally saying that any country that admits black or brown people will become a shit hole. And portraying Nazis as justified defenders of their country.

cosmicalstormfront could barely be more obvious if he replaced his avatar with a swastika and quoted Mein Kampf in his sig. How is he not banned yet?

But you don't exactly have to be a Nazi to look at the performance of black countries in Africa and say "I don't think mass immigration from these countries will bring anything good to my country" do you?

That is based on the assumption that the reason those countries are doing badly is because of the inferiority of the average citizen. Which, yes, is a bigoted position.

There are innumerable factors, from poor/despotic leadership at the top (something to which Western nations are by no means immune), to a history of Imperialism, to ongoing military conflicts and environmental issues, which contribute to those countries' problems without any need to blame the victims.

Yes, some of those countries have widespread values that run contrary to our laws. But at the same time, keep in mind that a disproportionate percentage of the people leaving will probably be those who don't like the way things are there now.

I mean if the extent of Hitler's ambition was to build a wall around Germany to limit immigration from Poland and Russia he would hardly be remembered as the monster he is today.

Certainly- he'd just be a minor-league asshole.

But the idea behind the demands to build those walls-the assumption that racial minorities and foreigners are inferior, and a corrupting/polluting influence on predominantly white western countries-is one of the underlying assumptions behind Nazis, and if that assumption is not challenged, whenever it rears its ugly head, it can lead to extremely dark places.

Edit: Also, of course, many of the European (and American) parties pushing such ideas, and that CS is defending, are more or less openly neo-fascist/neo-Nazi in their ideology.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

But you don't exactly have to be a Nazi to look at the performance of black countries in Africa and say "I don't think mass immigration from these countries will bring anything good to my country" do you?

Honestly, my experience is that the people motivated and competent enough to successfully navigate the process if emigrating from one country to another are usually likely to succeed in their host country, if given a chance to do so.

Given the kind of West African immigrants I've seen, there are not a lot of countries that would be made worse off by admitting, say, 10% of their population in West African immigrants. And most of them would be the ones with an overpopulation problem that would make it just as big a problem to let in 10% of their population in Scandinavians or Scots.

As a rule, useless dumbasses do not immigrate or fail to make it into the host country. The biggest danger from immigration isn't that the immigrants will somehow ruin your country with their foreign ways. It's that they'll be superior people compared to the most useless and dumbass members of your own native population, and thus outcompete them.

The only exceptions to this rule occur when something triggers an immigration wave large enough that even the useless dumbasses emigrate. Then and only then do you risk being drowned in inferior dumbasses. And that sounds like the sort of thing that would only become a problem if all the smart refugees decided to avoid your country in the first place for some reason. Probably because of it being super racist.

That is based on the assumption that the reason those countries are doing badly is because of the inferiority of the average citizen. Which, yes, is a bigoted position.

The best argument for "people from those countries are inferior" would generally be something like "they're suffering from disproportionate amounts of lead poisoning and malaria-induced brain damage." And in a case like that, sure you might be leery of letting them in... but their kids will be just fine. It's a short-term, self-solving problem once you relocate the immigrants to a developed country.

The Romulan Republic wrote:That is based on the assumption that the reason those countries are doing badly is because of the inferiority of the average citizen. Which, yes, is a bigoted position.

There are innumerable factors, from poor/despotic leadership at the top (something to which Western nations are by no means immune), to a history of Imperialism, to ongoing military conflicts and environmental issues, which contribute to those countries' problems without any need to blame the victims.

Yes, some of those countries have widespread values that run contrary to our laws. But at the same time, keep in mind that a disproportionate percentage of the people leaving will probably be those who don't like the way things are there now.

But saying is that yes these countries are what they are but here is a laundry list of excuses and explanations is not much of a sales pitch for immigration from these countries.

Simon_Jester wrote:Honestly, my experience is that the people motivated and competent enough to successfully navigate the process if emigrating from one country to another are usually likely to succeed in their host country, if given a chance to do so.

Given the kind of West African immigrants I've seen, there are not a lot of countries that would be made worse off by admitting, say, 10% of their population in West African immigrants. And most of them would be the ones with an overpopulation problem that would make it just as big a problem to let in 10% of their population in Scandinavians or Scots.

As a rule, useless dumbasses do not immigrate or fail to make it into the host country. The biggest danger from immigration isn't that the immigrants will somehow ruin your country with their foreign ways. It's that they'll be superior people compared to the most useless and dumbass members of your own native population, and thus outcompete them.

The only exceptions to this rule occur when something triggers an immigration wave large enough that even the useless dumbasses emigrate. Then and only then do you risk being drowned in inferior dumbasses. And that sounds like the sort of thing that would only become a problem if all the smart refugees decided to avoid your country in the first place for some reason. Probably because of it being super racist.

But how many West Africans are there in US? There are 300,000 Nigerians out of 150 million. Sure you pick best from the best out of a country of that size and you'll get some great people. But that's not really comparable to uncontrolled migration across the Mediterranean where you have no opportunity to pick people with required skills.
Similar to what I said to The Romulan Republic: saying sure Subsaharan Africa is what it is but the people I've personally met are great so let the equivalent of 10% of your population immigrate is not really a great sales pitch.

But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman

The Romulan Republic wrote:That is based on the assumption that the reason those countries are doing badly is because of the inferiority of the average citizen. Which, yes, is a bigoted position.

There are innumerable factors, from poor/despotic leadership at the top (something to which Western nations are by no means immune), to a history of Imperialism, to ongoing military conflicts and environmental issues, which contribute to those countries' problems without any need to blame the victims.

Yes, some of those countries have widespread values that run contrary to our laws. But at the same time, keep in mind that a disproportionate percentage of the people leaving will probably be those who don't like the way things are there now.

But saying is that yes these countries are what they are but here is a laundry list of excuses and explanations is not much of a sales pitch for immigration from these countries.

So rather than either back up or concede the assumption that those countries have problems because of the inferiority of their citizens, and the fear that letting in imigirants will lead to the deterioration of western countries, you will just try to hand wave any other explanation or factor as "excuses".

Translation: You are unwilling to seriously listen to, debate, or acknowledge any explanation or factor that does not conform to your existing (racist) prejudices.

In that case, I guess there's really nothing more to say.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

The Romulan Republic wrote:So rather than either back up or concede the assumption that those countries have problems because of the inferiority of their citizens, and the fear that letting in imigirants will lead to the deterioration of western countries, you will just try to hand wave any other explanation or factor as "excuses".

Translation: You are unwilling to seriously listen to, debate, or acknowledge any explanation or factor that does not conform to your existing (racist) prejudices.

In that case, I guess there's really nothing more to say.

But why are the citizens of the destination country on trial? You want to immigrate to a country? Prove that you have the required skills and a job waiting for you. And even if you do the citizens of the country still retain a right to elect a government that will chart a course with reduced immigration or even eliminate it alltogether.

But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman

The Romulan Republic wrote:So rather than either back up or concede the assumption that those countries have problems because of the inferiority of their citizens, and the fear that letting in imigirants will lead to the deterioration of western countries, you will just try to hand wave any other explanation or factor as "excuses".

Translation: You are unwilling to seriously listen to, debate, or acknowledge any explanation or factor that does not conform to your existing (racist) prejudices.

In that case, I guess there's really nothing more to say.

But why are the citizens of the destination country on trial?

They aren't. Only xenophobes regard the presence of immigrants as a persecution of their country's citizens.

Or alternatively, if you are referring to the criticisms of those citizens who support neo-fascist movements: they are "on trial" (if you want to hyperbolically put it that way) for supporting a bigoted and morally-bankrupt ideology with a history of atrocities and despotism. And it is my right of free expression to criticize them: you don't get to claim "the rights of the people" to defend those who vote for xenophobic policies, then cry "oppression!" when I exercise my right to hold a different view. Freedom of speech is a two-way street.

Nor do the neo-fascists speak for "the citizens of the destination country" as a whole.

You want to immigrate to a country? Prove that you have the required skills and a job waiting for you.

How does one "prove" that before arriving, if they are a refugee?

And if they do, will it honestly make any difference to the far Right's position? Tell them the immigrant has a job, and they'll just rant about how they're taking jobs from citizens (which ignores that bringing more people into the country also creates jobs, as more people means more customers, more demand for services, etc.).

Of course, the point of such rhetoric is generally to imply that immigrants (or non-white immigrants, at any rate) are lazy, stupid parasites, just coming to leach off our welfare systems/live as criminals. Which... see Simon_Jester's point about the kind of people who can make (and survive) the journeys man refugees undertake. These are not lazy or incapable people.

And even if you do the citizens of the country still retain a right to elect a government that will chart a course with reduced immigration or even eliminate it alltogether.

Yes.

But "the people have the right to do something" is not, in and of itself, a justification for why they should do it. Legally I can go out and get drunk off my ass every night. Doesn't make it a good idea.

"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.

"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.

But why are the citizens of the destination country on trial? You want to immigrate to a country? Prove that you have the required skills and a job waiting for you.

Are the natives subject to similar considerations? Do we have mandatory intelligence tests or jobworthiness tests that we subject our own offspring to, and deport them if they fail? Surely if there's a "you must be this valuable to enter" test, there should be a "you must be this valuable to remain" test.

Otherwise, to me this sounds more like a desperate attempt to cover up a lingering fear of racial inferiority, than anything else.

So tell me, at what standard of qualitative unworthiness do we expel someone from a country for being generically useless? Or perhaps we could start abandoning 'inferior' people to die of exposure, like the ancients did to children with disabilities because they couldn't afford to take care of them?

But how many West Africans are there in US? There are 300,000 Nigerians out of 150 million. Sure you pick best from the best out of a country of that size and you'll get some great people. But that's not really comparable to uncontrolled migration across the Mediterranean where you have no opportunity to pick people with required skills.

The same dynamic is in play when dealing with, say, Salvadoreans, who have little or no more difficulty getting to the US physically than, say, Ghanans would getting to Europe. By and large, the people with the life skills, intelligence, and flexibility to emigrate are not actively inferior to the people in the country they move to. Some proportion of them may be lucky fools, or people whose skills are undesirable in the host nation (i.e. con men), but no more so than you might expect just from looking at the people being born in the host country.

There's an argument for restricting immigration to levels the host country can integrate in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. 1% or 2% of the population a year, perhaps more, but not 20% or 30% a year obviously). But that's not really the argument you're advancing here.

Similar to what I said to The Romulan Republic: saying sure Subsaharan Africa is what it is but the people I've personally met are great so let the equivalent of 10% of your population immigrate is not really a great sales pitch.

Bluntly, I don't think the US would be worse off for admitting 30 million West African immigrants, if there were 30 million West African immigrants available. I think the bulk of them would be intelligent, motivated people who would be net contributors to society. Insofar as they arrived without skills, most of them would acquire those skills to the best of their ability. Some fraction of them would no doubt be useless ne'er-do-wells, but some fraction of Americans born in the US are too.

I think in some ways we might be better off, in some ways worse off, but on net I don't think it would truly create more problems than it solved. I think admitting them all at once would be a problem, but it would also be such a massive and unprecedented Volkerwanderung that I don't consider it a realistic concern that they actually might arrive all at once.